From: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>
To: Yoav Cohen <yoav@nvidia.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, csander@purestorage.com,
jholzman@nvidia.com, omril@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ublk: honor rq_affinity on request completion
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2026 09:04:29 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <asj0bWwUSiSFh4hT@fedora-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261006190348.85094-2-yoav@nvidia.com>
On Tue, Oct 06, 2026 at 10:03:47PM +0300, Yoav Cohen wrote:
> ublk ends successfully completed requests inline on the server thread
> that issued UBLK_IO_COMMIT_AND_FETCH_REQ, so rq_affinity never
> redirects completion back to the submitting CPU, unlike NVMe, SCSI,
> virtio-blk, loop, nbd and rnbd.
>
> Route completion through blk_mq_complete_request_remote(), with a new
> ->complete() callback, ublk_end_rq(). This covers every completion
> outcome -- reads, writes, flush/discard, errors, and the zero-copy/
> user-copy/auto-buf-reg/shmem-zc paths that skip the copy-back step --
> not just the classic-copy-mode successful-read case, since
> ublk_end_rq() re-derives which of those __ublk_complete_rq() took from
> @req and @io state rather than assuming one.
>
> Gate it behind a new UBLK_F_SUPPORT_RQ_AFFINITY flag that a server
> must request at ADD_DEV time; servers that don't ask for it keep
> today's always-local completion unchanged. Add ublk_support_rq_affinity()
> alongside the existing ublk_support_*() helpers, and check it before
> calling blk_mq_complete_request_remote() at both call sites.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yoav Cohen <yoav@nvidia.com>
> ---
> drivers/block/ublk_drv.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> include/uapi/linux/ublk_cmd.h | 8 +++
> 2 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
> index 66eb55e7162e..b94293296b73 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
> @@ -90,7 +90,8 @@
> | UBLK_F_BATCH_IO \
> | UBLK_F_NO_AUTO_PART_SCAN \
> | UBLK_F_SHMEM_ZC \
> - | UBLK_F_IO_DESC_SIZE)
> + | UBLK_F_IO_DESC_SIZE \
> + | UBLK_F_SUPPORT_RQ_AFFINITY)
>
> #define UBLK_F_ALL_RECOVERY_FLAGS (UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY \
> | UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY_REISSUE \
> @@ -452,6 +453,11 @@ static inline bool ublk_support_user_copy(const struct ublk_queue *ubq)
> return ubq->flags & UBLK_F_USER_COPY;
> }
>
> +static inline bool ublk_support_rq_affinity(const struct ublk_queue *ubq)
> +{
> + return ubq->flags & UBLK_F_SUPPORT_RQ_AFFINITY;
> +}
> +
> static inline bool ublk_dev_support_user_copy(const struct ublk_device *ub)
> {
> return ub->dev_info.flags & UBLK_F_USER_COPY;
> @@ -1468,6 +1474,14 @@ static inline bool ublk_need_unmap_req(const struct request *req)
> (req_op(req) == REQ_OP_READ || req_op(req) == REQ_OP_DRV_IN);
> }
>
> +/* Whether __ublk_complete_rq() takes the copy-back/partial-completion path */
> +static inline bool ublk_rq_need_unmap(const struct ublk_queue *ubq,
> + struct request *req)
> +{
> + return ublk_need_map_io(ubq) && ublk_need_unmap_req(req) &&
> + !ublk_iod_is_shmem_zc(ubq, req->tag);
> +}
> +
> static unsigned int ublk_map_io(const struct request *req,
> const struct ublk_io *io)
> {
> @@ -1549,13 +1563,62 @@ static void ublk_end_request(struct request *req, blk_status_t error)
> local_bh_enable();
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Update @req with its result and requeue it if it was only partially
> + * completed. Returns true if @req was requeued, in which case the caller
> + * must not touch it any further.
> + *
> + * Run bio->bi_end_io() with softirqs disabled. If the final fput happens
> + * off this path, then that will prevent ublk's blkdev_release() from
> + * being called on current's task work, see fput() implementation.
> + *
> + * This matters for the caller completing @req locally on the ublk
> + * server's own thread: it may already be holding disk->open_mutex, e.g.
> + * reading the partition table from bdev_open(), and an fput() running
> + * inline there could deadlock on it. Preferably we would not be doing
> + * IO with a mutex held that is also used for release, but this
> + * work-around will suffice for now. A caller reached instead via
> + * blk_mq_complete_request_remote()'s softirq/IPI redirect never runs on
> + * that thread, so it isn't exposed to this hazard, but disabling
> + * softirqs here is harmless for it too.
> + */
> +static inline bool ublk_update_and_requeue(struct request *req,
> + struct ublk_io *io)
> +{
> + bool requeue;
> +
> + local_bh_disable();
> + requeue = blk_update_request(req, BLK_STS_OK, io->res);
> + local_bh_enable();
> + if (requeue)
> + blk_mq_requeue_request(req, true);
> + return requeue;
> +}
> +
> +static void ublk_end_rq(struct request *req)
> +{
> + struct ublk_queue *ubq = req->mq_hctx->driver_data;
> + struct ublk_io *io = &ubq->ios[req->tag];
> +
> + /* matches the two outcomes __ublk_complete_rq() may have redirected */
> + if (io->res >= 0 && ublk_rq_need_unmap(ubq, req)) {
> + if (!ublk_update_and_requeue(req, io) &&
> + likely(!blk_should_fake_timeout(req->q)))
> + __blk_mq_end_request(req, BLK_STS_OK);
> + return;
> + }
ublk_end_rq() may be run from remove cpu, then it becomes fragile to
touch `io` here, and not efficient to touch `ubq` as Caleb mentioned.
It could be simplified a lot to just deal with normal io->res == blk_rq_bytes(req)
here, meantime keep everything else(short write, failure, ...) in __ublk_complete_rq().
Thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-09 14:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-06 19:03 [PATCH v2 0/2] ublk: honor rq_affinity on request completion Yoav Cohen
2026-10-06 19:03 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] " Yoav Cohen
2026-10-06 21:53 ` Caleb Sander Mateos
2026-10-09 13:43 ` Ming Lei
2026-10-09 14:04 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2026-10-06 19:03 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] selftests: ublk: add rq_affinity test Yoav Cohen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=asj0bWwUSiSFh4hT@fedora-laptop \
--to=tom.leiming@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=csander@purestorage.com \
--cc=jholzman@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=omril@nvidia.com \
--cc=yoav@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox